The .270 is an excellent choice. Assuming you can't get your hands on a .280. Or a 7-08. Or a .260, maybe a 30-06........ 6.5Swede; a 7x57; 8x57 Mauser; 300Savage. However, I would definitely reach over a 30-30 or a .243 to pick up a .270 if those were my only choices.
Now then, do you .270 lovers feel better now? You've be reassured that the .270 will indeed kill a deer.

quote:

Now then, do you .270 lovers feel better now? You've be reassured that the .270 will indeed kill a deer. Smiler

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

Now then, do you .270 lovers feel better now? You've be reassured that the .270 will indeed kill a deer.

Of course, whether the .270 will kill deer wasn't my question. The question was whether anyone has any examples of when it might be a BAD choice for deer?

I have always been pretty much the opposite of a .270 fan. Among cartridges of the same relative power and case size, I've always preferred the '06 and the .280 Rem.

Over the years I don't think there has ever been a time when I had less than 9 .30-06's (I think the critters swim into this area to spawn in my vault), while seldom have I had more than one .270 in there at a time. Heck, I usually have more each of .25-06s, .257 Roberts, 7xmetrics, and 7 Mags than .270s.

It was just that I got to thinking I might not be giving the .270 its due. It has never failed ME in deer hunting, and I got to wondering if there were circumstances where it likely might. Couldn't think of any off the top of my head, so asked the question which is the basis of this thread.

I'm don't get all wound up about calibers, and I'm sure I'll throw up if I see another 270 vs 30-06 article. However, I would observe that 270's necessarily have fairly long barrels, and nearly all are in turn bolt configuration. That results in significant overall length. Which leads me to my favorite whitetail rifle, a Ruger No. 1 RSI in 7 x 57, perfect for deer in the thick bottomlands. It's nearly as fast as a pistol, points like a good shotgun, and you can carry it by the wrist and the muzzle won't drag in the dirt. So, while the 270 is a superb cartridge, many 270 rifles are not well suited to some uses.

A hunting friend also has a No. 1 RSI, but in 270. With the 18.5" barrel, the muzzle blast is considerable compared to my 7 x 57. It's a matter of matching the caliber to the type of action and barrel length.

quote:

Originally posted: I would observe that 270's necessarily have fairly long barrels, and nearly all are in turn bolt configuration.

A lot of .270 rifles have 22" barrels straight from the factory...like all the M-70 FWs. Certainly that isn't quite as handy as an RSI .308 I've got, but it isn't awkwardly long either. Does your friend's RSI .270 handicap him in his deer hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

Now then, do you .270 lovers feel better now? You've be reassured that the .270 will indeed kill a deer.

Of course, whether the .270 will kill deer wasn't my question. The question was whether anyone has any examples of when it might be a BAD choice for deer?

There aren't any particular to the .270 alone.
Ive only bought three .270s in my life;one as a presnt to a friend who was a O'Conner follower and two mod. 200s for barrel exchange of which I only change one, because the other POS shot so good. Having been a 6.5 advocate in the 50s and 60s I looked down my nose at the .270.Maturity as it comes changes things. I became aware that any big game that I taken with any 6.5 could have been equaled with the Ho-hum .270. Sadly I have never used the .270 on a deer or Elk hunt. What is revealed to me is that the .270 Falls into a category of numerous cartridges that that are not only adequate but ( O'Conner *** ) are truely superior roger

It's always a great choice for deer and a lot of other critters.

Amen Doc

The .270 is a bad choice when you are the deer.

Dean

When hell freezes over!

465H&H

not a good choice when poaching deer out of your game warden neighbors yard

quote:

Of course, whether the .270 will kill deer wasn't my question. The question was whether anyone has any examples of when it might be a BAD choice for deer?

I can think of only one. Places like Kodiak Island where, so I've heard, that if you shoot a deer, the great bears think they've heard a dinner bell. Things might get a tad dicey about the time you got busy with the gutting.

FRankly, my experience with the .270 is very long and extremely thin. I bought my fist one in 1973 as I recall and shot two deer with it. I hated the results with 130 gr. bullets and way too much good meat got mangled. The late father of a good friend and hunting partner suggested I use 150 gr. bullets instead. I worked up a load with the Sierra 150 gr. game King that was dad nuts accurate but never shot anything with the load in that rifle. I later found a smokin' deal on a Winchester M70 XTR with scope so I bought it and worked up a load for that rifle with the Sierra GK. WOW! Damned gun is one of the most accurate rifles I own putting five shot groups on paper in .50 to .80" groups depending on how I'm shooting and weather conditions. used that rifle and load in August of 2009 to take my antelope and it did the job in a professional manner.
I didn't draw for deer, antelope or elk again this year and so I'll figure on doing a play for pay hunt somewhere. I did put in for Mule Deer as usual but there is supposed to be quite a few Coues Whitetail tags left over. I'm gonna talk with a friend who hunts them exclusively and see what he thinks of the left over areas. Then I'll consider what other options I have if I don't get a tag for the Couse Deer.
Paul B.

Paul -

I agree with you. Thinking in particular of some of the Alaskan Islands where blacktail deer hunting is cheek-by-jowl with the big brown bears through dense bush down near the water and across meadows with very deep grass on hilltops, I would consider the .270 a BAD choice if I was hunting by myself.

Even with a partner or two, I might stumble onto a hostile (or scared) bear and be where no one else could have a clear shot to save my butt. THEN, I'd wish I had at least a .338 Mag, or better yet, something bigger...like my .404 Jeffery. (If I was Superman and could handle it, I'd probably wish I had a 106 m/m recoil-less rifle!)

When hunting areas where big predatory bears abound, I want a bear rifle, not a deer rifle!! I can kill deer with one of those bear guns, but am sure I don't wanta try to rely on killing big bears up close with a .270, given a choice.

It is a bad choice when you are within 200 yards of the deer!
The 270 is my everyday rifle and I use it for almost everything on my ranch, but if my (non-deer) quarry is relatively close I believe that I would be better off with a slower moving cartridge like a 165 gr 308 Win or similar.
These will provide all the penetration needed with less meat damage.
The closer the animal the slower the bullet the better, in my opinion.
My 270 lives on 140 AB's and I love it.

Karoo,
Why don't you slow your .270 bullet down? (assuming you reload)
Or go to a heavier/stouter bullet? The 140 gr. AccuBond seems to be a very tough bullet when I've used them. I am surprised you are getting that much meat damage with it as compared to a standard cup&core bullets.
Woodleigh makes a 180 gr bullet in .277. Although it is advertised as "consistant and devastating" , it could/should give you the same results at lower muzzle velocitiies.
.270s generally aren't that picky as far as velocity/accuracy.
Just find the right combo and it will do what you want.

Just noticed this near disaster over on AT from a (rag) 270Win.

"Karoo,
Why don't you slow your .270 bullet down? (assuming you reload)"

I have no complaints and am happy with my chosen velocity as I need to shoot long-range too.
Point is every cartridge is a compromise and a jack of all trades means a master of none.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
When you coulda had a .280!

+1